Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2005 Jan;76(1):58–63. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2003.017897

A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments

J Fisk 1, M Brown 1, I Sketris 1, L Metz 1, T Murray 1, K Stadnyk 1
PMCID: PMC1739294  PMID: 15607996

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the practical application and psychometric properties of three health utility measures in a sample of MS patients with a broad range of neurological disability as measured by the Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

Methods: Patients randomly selected from two MS clinic registries were assessed using standard clinical methods and completed three generic measures of health utility (EQ-5D, HUI Mark III, SF-6D). The proportion of missing data, test/retest reliability, and construct validity of each health utility measure were examined.

Results: The assessments were completed by 187 patients. Less than 10% of data were missing for the subscales of the SF-6D (<3.2%), HUI Mark III (<1.6%), and EQ-5D (⩽7.5%). Severely disabled patients were more likely to omit physical function questions for the SF-6D (20%), and EQ-5D (43%). Retest reliability for the SF-6D (ICC = 0.83), EQ-5D (ICC = 0.81), and HUI Mark III (ICC = 0.87) were adequate for population surveys. Correlations between assessment of clinical function and each health utility measure were strongest for the HUI Mark III (HUI Mark III EDSS ρ = –0.77, HUI Mark III ambulation index ρ = –0.76, HUI Mark III timed 25 foot walk ρ = –0.73, HUI Mark III nine hole peg test ρ = –0.65).

Conclusions: The health utility measures were generally feasible and reliable but the HUI Mark III demonstrated highest concordance with the EDSS across the full range of neurological disability. Of the three measures studied, the HUI Mark III may be the most appropriate for cost effectiveness evaluations of MS therapies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (86.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arnoldus J. H., Killestein J., Pfennings L. E., Jelles B., Uitdehaag B. M., Polman C. H. Quality of life during the first 6 months of interferon-beta treatment in patients with MS. Mult Scler. 2000 Oct;6(5):338–342. doi: 10.1177/135245850000600508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brazier J., Usherwood T., Harper R., Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1115–1128. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00103-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown M. G., Murray T. J., Sketris I. S., Fisk J. D., LeBlanc J. C., Schwartz C. E., Skedgel C. Cost-effectiveness of interferon beta-1b in slowing multiple sclerosis disability progression. First estimates. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Summer;16(3):751–767. doi: 10.1017/s026646230010203x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cairns J. Measuring health outcomes. BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):6–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7048.6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ford H. L., Gerry E., Tennant A., Whalley D., Haigh R., Johnson M. H. Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. 2001 Jun;15(3):247–258. doi: 10.1191/026921501673658108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Freeman J. A., Hobart J. C., Langdon D. W., Thompson A. J. Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Feb;68(2):150–156. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.68.2.150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goodkin D. E., Hertsgaard D., Seminary J. Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: improving assessment sensitivity with box-and-block and nine-hole peg tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Oct;69(10):850–854. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grima D. T., Torrance G. W., Francis G., Rice G., Rosner A. J., Lafortune L. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2000 Apr;6(2):91–98. doi: 10.1177/135245850000600207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Groot W. Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life. J Health Econ. 2000 May;19(3):403–420. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(99)00037-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Guyatt G. H., Feeny D. H., Patrick D. L. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Apr 15;118(8):622–629. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hauser S. L., Dawson D. M., Lehrich J. R., Beal M. F., Kevy S. V., Propper R. D., Mills J. A., Weiner H. L. Intensive immunosuppression in progressive multiple sclerosis. A randomized, three-arm study of high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide, plasma exchange, and ACTH. N Engl J Med. 1983 Jan 27;308(4):173–180. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198301273080401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawthorne G., Richardson J., Day N. A. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):358–370. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hobart J., Freeman J., Lamping D., Fitzpatrick R., Thompson A. The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: why basic assumptions must be tested. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001 Sep;71(3):363–370. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.71.3.363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hobart J., Lamping D., Fitzpatrick R., Riazi A., Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001 May;124(Pt 5):962–973. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.5.962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kendrick M., Johnson K. I. Long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-beta may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Jul;18(1):45–53. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200018010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurtzke J. F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444–1452. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Little Ruth. NHS to fund treatment for 10000 patients with MS. BMJ. 2002 Feb 9;324(7333):316–316. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7333.316a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lublin F. D., Reingold S. C. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology. 1996 Apr;46(4):907–911. doi: 10.1212/wnl.46.4.907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. McHorney C. A., Tarlov A. R. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995 Aug;4(4):293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Parkin D., Jacoby A., McNamee P., Miller P., Thomas S., Bates D. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon beta: an appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Feb;68(2):144–149. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.68.2.144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Poser C. M., Paty D. W., Scheinberg L., McDonald W. I., Davis F. A., Ebers G. C., Johnson K. P., Sibley W. A., Silberberg D. H., Tourtellotte W. W. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol. 1983 Mar;13(3):227–231. doi: 10.1002/ana.410130302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Revicki D. A., Ehreth J. L. Health-related quality-of-life assessment and planning for the pharmaceutical industry. Clin Ther. 1997 Sep-Oct;19(5):1101–1115. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(97)80063-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rice G., Ebers G. Interferons in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: do they prevent the progression of the disease? Arch Neurol. 1998 Dec;55(12):1578–1580. doi: 10.1001/archneur.55.12.1578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rothwell P. M., McDowell Z., Wong C. K., Dorman P. J. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1997 May 31;314(7094):1580–1583. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rothwell P. M. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 Oct;65(4):433–433. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.65.4.433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rudick R., Antel J., Confavreux C., Cutter G., Ellison G., Fischer J., Lublin F., Miller A., Petkau J., Rao S. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol. 1997 Sep;42(3):379–382. doi: 10.1002/ana.410420318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Siderowf Andrew, Ravina Bernard, Glick Henry A. Preference-based quality-of-life in patients with Parkinson's disease. Neurology. 2002 Jul 9;59(1):103–108. doi: 10.1212/wnl.59.1.103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Torrance G. W., Furlong W., Feeny D., Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Jun;7(6):503–520. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199507060-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Vickrey B. G., Hays R. D., Harooni R., Myers L. W., Ellison G. W. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 1995 Jun;4(3):187–206. doi: 10.1007/BF02260859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES